Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 52: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I was compelled to come and talk just a little bit about this amendment, which I commend my friend from Texas for offering, because I've been surprised at the rapidity with which the new majority has regained their old stripes that they lost 12-plus years ago.

We were sitting in committee the other day and marking or finishing the prospects of a bill that we're passing out of the Education Committee, and it turns out that there was more estimated revenue that came into the Federal Government and was eligible for appropriation by the committee. And so the majority party, within very short order, stated that they had found hundreds of millions of new dollars and they were offering an amendment to recognize that, in fact, they had found hundreds of millions of new dollars; and then, within seconds, appropriated or authorized the spending of the hundreds of millions of new dollars.

So I was somewhat bemused by that and made the comment at the time that I was pleased that they had found the hundreds of millions of new dollars; I was somewhat surprised that they had spent it so rapidly.

And so I would draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that an issue, a process by which the Federal Government has been utilizing to save hundreds of millions of dollars and, yes, billions of dollars, as stated by the gentleman from Texas, that of providing for competitive bidding, is an appropriate process. It's an appropriate process for our Federal Government to use. It's a responsible process so that we may spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars wisely. And so I'm distressed that this bill would include a section that would preclude competitive bidding.

As everyone knows and understands kind of inherently, there are many, many things that the private sector can do much more reasonably and responsibly and efficiently and without significant expenditure of resources than can the public sector. And so it just makes no sense to me, and certainly no sense to my constituents back in the Sixth District of Georgia, that we would adopt a new measure that would provide that we ought not have competitive bidding.

But I think it points out a significant distinction, a difference between the two parties. The minority party believes that it's appropriate to have competitive bidding, that it's appropriate to utilize the full robust nature of the private sector whenever possible, in some instances it's not possible, but whenever possible in order to save hard-earned taxpayer money.

The majority party apparently believes, given that this is included in the bill, that that's not an appropriate concern of the Federal Government, that we ought not be looking for all efficiencies possible, and I think that's an appropriate distinction to draw.

I think it's a conclusion that, obviously, Mr. Chairman, the American people will draw given this provision in the bill. It's a distinction that I would suggest the American people weren't aware of when they went to the polls last November. It's a distinction I do believe, however, they will be paying attention to as future elections arise.

But I just want to commend my friend from Texas for this remarkably commonsense amendment, for appropriately reviewing the legislation and identifying those areas where, in fact, savings could occur; and part of our responsibility certainly is providing money for the necessary activities of the Federal Government, but it's also part of our responsibility to be as prudent as we can with hard-earned taxpayer money.

I also want to commend my other friend from Texas, who was here just before me, talking about the importance of providing the distinction in the majority party already passing a budget that has the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation.

That, again, is evidence of their return to the previous stripes that they had 12-plus years ago.

I am pleased to join my colleague from Texas in this commonsense, wise, fiscally prudent, and fiscally responsible amendment.

I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I find the most recent comment of our good friend on the other side rather amusing, as the President is charged with executing the policies that this Congress puts in place; and heaven forbid, that he or whoever might occupy that office, might have certain priorities that they would want to bring about to, in fact, execute the policies that have been passed by this Congress.

But be that as it may, I want to commend my good friend from Texas for bringing this amendment forward. I think that the amendment itself highlights truly the fallacy of the process that we're under. And that is, as my good friend from New Jersey just mentioned, that we fail in this Congress, at least the majority party fails in this Congress to prioritize spending in a way that passes a test that I believe the American people would be proud of or be pleased with.

The point isn't, as my good friend from Indiana has stated, the specifics of the project that he identified. That is not the point of the debate that we would rise to engage in. The point is that when is enough enough? When is it that we, as a Federal Government, take hard- earned tax money out of the pocketbooks and the back pockets of Americans and say, okay, that's all we need.

Clearly, this new majority has said that we can't get enough. We can't get enough. And consequently, they have adopted, in this past 6 months, a budget that includes the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, the largest tax increase in the history of America.

And I have friends at home who say, well, that wouldn't be so bad if, in fact, they were solving real problems. But, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, the challenge of the Federal spending, the challenge of the budgetary process is the automatic programs, the entitlement programs, the mandatory programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which comprise 54, 55 percent of our Federal budget.

And the budget that this new majority passed that included the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation did nothing, said nothing about how to reform those programs; how to make certain that Social Security, which is a program that is challenged to be charitable, challenged from a process standpoint, to be able to provide a safety net for those young citizens across our Nation who are in their 20s and 30s.

It is a program that will not have those kinds of resources without structural change, and so the majority party passes a budget with the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation and says nothing, it is mute, as it relates to Social Security reform. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that is what the American people sent us to Washington to do. I think they sent us to Washington to solve real problems.

As a physician prior to coming to Congress, one of the huge challenges

that we face is the provision of health care and health insurance for our citizens. And, consequently, the other two limbs of the budgetary challenge that we have, Medicare and Medicaid, huge problems, huge challenges from a financial standpoint. They require structural change. However, this majority passed in their budget, again the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, nearly $400 billion, and said nothing, nothing about structural reform to those programs that are imperative for the healthiness of our Nation.

So when we talk about our concern regarding spending, it is not necessarily the specifics of a given paragraph within a spending bill. The specifics are the overall amount of money that we are spending as a Federal Government and the fact that we are ignoring, this Congress is ignoring, the true financial challenges that face us as a Nation.

So I rise to commend my friend from Texas for offering an amendment that I think brings focus to where the debate ought to be, and that is to challenge each and every Member of this body and each and every Member of the Senate to make certain that before we end our time here this fiscal year, to make certain that the budget for fiscal year 2008 is as responsible as it can be, that we address appropriately those huge financial challenges that we have as a Nation and be much more responsible with taxpayer money and make certain that we allow Americans to keep their hard-earned taxpayer money in their back pocket and in their pocketbooks.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I was compelled to come down to just comment about some of the information that we've heard from the other side regarding issues not necessarily related to this amendment, because they broadened the debate significantly to talk about the deficit. And Mr. Chairman, as you well know, the deficit has been decreasing significantly for reasons that I would like to touch on a little bit.

They also talked about the issue of the work that they had accomplished, that this majority had accomplished. And they talk about decreasing gas prices. Well, in fact, what their gas bill did, Mr. Chairman, as you recall is to increase taxes on United States oil companies. Sounds good maybe in some districts, I don't know; mine is not terribly interested in anybody paying more taxes. But they increased taxes on United States oil companies. Now that bill sits in the Senate, thank goodness, because hopefully the Senate will be able to resolve it and correct it so that the actual policy of this Congress on gas prices will indeed be to bring them down. It takes greater responsibility to do that.

If in fact that were to become law, then what we would do under the direction of this majority party is to decrease the ability for American oil companies to produce American oil, and we would increase our reliance and our dependency on foreign oil; not the greatest energy plan, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest.

They also talked about assisting kids' education, college education. We have that as a goal, certainly. We think it's appropriate to provide for greater resources for American citizens to attend higher education. What does their bill do, though, Mr. Chairman? Again, it sits in the Senate, so hopefully we will have the Senate correct that.

But what their bill does is to ratchet down very gradually the interest rate that students pay on loans to go to college and keeps them at half their current rate for 6 months, Mr. Chairman, and then, boom, right back up to where they were. Well, Mr. Chairman, that isn't leadership either.

Now, this chart right here, Mr. Chairman, talks about the increasing Federal revenue. But this red line here could be jobs, it could be increasing Federal revenue, it could be economic development. And there was a remarkable thing that occurred in 2003 that made it so that that line goes up appropriately. Thank goodness, the American people say. Appropriately, Federal revenues increase, economic development increases, jobs increase. And what happened in 2003 was the culmination of appropriate tax reductions for the American people. And what does this majority want to do? It wants to take that line back down. Because what they've done is passed a budget that reverses every single tax reduction, appropriate tax reduction, for the American people. Mr. Chairman, that is not the kind of leadership, I don't think, the American people deserve, nor is it the type of leadership that they desire.

So, when we broaden this debate, it's appropriate, because the American people, Mr. Chairman, the American people are watching, and what they see is a majority party that is terribly interested in making certain that the American people are taxed to a greater degree so that they ostensibly have more money to be able to spend on their pet programs.

My good friend says that it's only folks who make hundreds of millions of dollars who will have their taxes go up. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not the case, as you well know. Taxes will increase for virtually every single American. Anybody who pays taxes now, under this new majority if they get their way, will have increased taxes. That's not the kind of leadership I believe the American people voted for in November, it is not the kind of leadership that we would provide, it is not the kind of leadership that the American people deserve.

So, I am pleased that my good friends on the other side have broadened the debate because it results in the opportunity to bring into focus greater clarity to these budget bills, greater clarity to these appropriations bills, and makes certain that the American people are paying attention to the kind of leadership that this new majority is offering, or the lack of leadership they're offering.

I am pleased to yield to my friend from New Jersey.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 12: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following new section:

Sec. 503. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made

available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated

or otherwise made available by a provision of law is reduced

by 1 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the Chair, and I thank the leadership for the opportunity to present this amendment.

This amendment is very simple. It transfers $50 million from the 1990 BRAC account and puts $22 million into the Veterans Health Administration and Medical Services account. The proposal for the 1990 BRAC account is $50 million above the Department of Defense request. As has been talked about with the previous amendment, it is nigh impossible to be spending more than the request.

The money that is in the request is used for environmental cleanup associated with previous BRAC-based closings, and my amendment would make the 1990 BRAC account reflect the Defense Department request and place $22 million of these funds in health care for our veterans. The amendment as scored by CBO is outlay neutral which is the reason for the difference in the figures.

While cleaning up after base closings is indeed important, the unrequested money, as has been mentioned, would be very difficult to spend and would be better spent, I believe, by providing better health care for our returning service men and women.

The conflict we are in has left many soldiers with lifelong injuries, and veterans are acquiring lasting health care. As a physician, I am well aware of the fact that traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder are the signature conditions from our current conflict. As we are learning more about traumatic brain injury and PTSD, we find that more and more of our soldiers are suffering from these injuries.

I believe it is imperative that we ensure that as much funding as possible

is available to go for important veterans health care. I believe this amendment to be a fiscally responsible amendment that ensures that our veterans are taken care of in the finest possible manner. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's comments, and I applaud the work he has done to increase funding for veterans health care, sincerely. I don't recall, specifically, requests to the committee; but I am certainly on record in multiple areas across this Congress in urging increased funding for health care. As a physician, I appreciate the need for increased funding for health care across all areas of our budget.

My understanding regarding this provision in the bill is that the $50 million increase over the DOD request is, as I understood it, money that would not be able to be spent in fiscal year 2008. Consequently, that was the reason we requested or proposed in this amendment that the money come from that. So removing $50 million from there, based on outlays by CBO, would stipulate that $22 million was available; and it is my respected request to my colleagues that we place that money for veterans health care for the obvious benefits to all.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the chairman yielding.

I would hope that we wouldn't impugn an individual's motives for bringing amendments forward. My motive is sincere. I believe it is appropriate to increase funding for veterans health care as much as possible, and it was my understanding, and we can disagree about whether or not the funds would be available to be spent in fiscal year 2008, and we may have a legitimate disagreement about that, but I would hope that we wouldn't impugn an individual's motives.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I commend you for the increase in health care spending.

The $22 million comes from removing the $50 million that the Defense Department didn't request in the account, and then it works out to be $22 million based on outlays.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I think I mentioned in my comments that the increase in traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress syndrome that we are seeing with the conflict that we are currently in obviously warrants as much funding as we can make available to our veterans who are serving us so proudly.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on this Flag Day we celebrate liberty. On this Flag Day, we celebrate democracy. And on this Flag Day, we're hopeful that the majority party will recognize and honor democracy and liberty by allowing all Members of the House, Republican and Democrat, the right to see and to know everything in appropriations bills, spending bills, before we vote. That's what our constituents expect, and that's what they demand.

These past 2 days have been an eye-opener for America, clearly demonstrating that Republicans are the champions of fiscal responsibility and honest debate as we've fought for democracy on the floor of this House.

Transparency and accountability in spending will confirm for the American people that new leadership is needed to preserve not just the Federal budget, but the family budget as well; and the American people are watching.

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object.

I know that we have been discussing this for a long time, and I appreciate the tolerance of all involved and I am sorry that, using a word that was used before, that you have to endure this, but I have three very specific questions.

The chair of the Appropriations Committee in his initial comments said about the agreement that has been worked out, that it has not been signed or not been agreed to because there was an issue that had yet to be worked out. Did I understand the gentleman correctly?

I appreciate that.

My second question is: The earmarks for these two bills, Homeland Security and Military Construction/Quality of Life, when might we expect to see those or deal with those before the House?

I thank the gentleman.

The final question I have is in the past it has appeared that the agreement between the majority party and the minority party regarding the unanimous consent and time limits on appropriations bills has tended to be during the process of the debate, and if the debate was moving along expeditiously, there was no need for a unanimous consent agreement.

My question is: Is it the intent to operate traditionally as has been done, or is the intent to adopt a unanimous consent agreement prior to the bill being taken up?

The majority leader may be able to assist.

I yield.

And I thank the leader, and I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Chairman, point of order.

Do the rules not stipulate that the Chair is to be an impartial arbiter of the proceedings of the House?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Do the rules not state that the Chair of the House is to be an impartial arbiter of the proceedings?

I thank the Chair.

I thank Mr. Carter for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to prevent further delay in the construction of border fencing as prescribed in the Secure Fence Act.

Last Congress, Republicans responded to public opinion and national need and authorized the creation of more than 700 miles of fence along the southern border. Instead of providing resources for the border fencing and surveillance, however, the majority has crafted a lengthy list of reporting requirements to delay the building of the fence.

One requirement would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to wait before taking any border security action that warrants the use of environmental waiver authority. This invites frivolous litigation and inhibits the Department's ability from addressing vulnerabilities.

Another requirement would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to solicit local advice and support before constructing infrastructure. This gives communities veto authority over Federal policy to control the border, including some sanctuary cities. The American people are watching Congress and what it is doing on immigration reform.

The American people are looking to trust the Federal Government again.

The American people are looking to trust the Federal Government again to live up to its promises and enforce the rule of law. The provisions of this act undermine the people's trust and signals that it is business as usual in Washington, that it's not serious about dealing with our immigration crisis. Many believe that the clear goal of this bill is not to fund border security. This amendment will go a long way toward moving us in the right direction.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 17: Page 10, line 17, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

Page 27, line 6, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $22,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 17: Page 10, line 17, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

Page 27, line 6, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $22,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

No, sir.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward again to a spirit of debate today on an issue that's of the highest importance, I believe, to the American people.

Before we get into the substance of the amendment, I thought it might be appropriate to review a few items of discussion as we closed last evening. We had some good friends on the other side who talked about all of this being ``a waste of time.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, I am here to tell you that my colleagues and I believe that any time that we can fight on behalf of the American people for transparency and for accountability and, yes, for democracy, that that is not a waste of time.

We heard last evening that our discussion points on this appropriations bill, which spends billions of hard-earned taxpayer money, that it was long on process and short on policy. Well, Mr. Chairman, our policy regarding the earmark issue, which has now grabbed the attention of the entire Nation, our policy was complete transparency and an opportunity not just to be informed about earmarks, but to have an up or down vote, an up or down vote and the opportunity to vote on each individual special project. That is an apparent novel thought to our new majority, and we would encourage them to visit the rule that we had in place prior to the change in leadership.

We also heard last evening that we weren't hearing any facts by the minority party. Well, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that their earmark policy, the majority party's earmark policy is simply a slush fund to spend money as they or one individual may deem fit.

As we revisit this second-order amendment, I think it's important for the American people to appreciate and for our colleagues to appreciate that what this amendment would do would be to decrease spending by the majority party by about $8.5 million. Mr. Chairman, that's $8.5 million in savings to the American people.

Now, I know to some here in Washington that may seem like a paltry sum, but $8.5 million is a lot of money. It's a lot of money, and it's appropriate for us to be discussing how that money ought be spent.

The chairman of the subcommittee said yesterday what we needed was a reality check about this amount of money that was in the bill. He said that the majority party consulted with the Office of Executive Counsel, and this is exactly the amount of money that they said they needed. Well, Mr. Chairman, we consulted some folks, too. We consulted the American taxpayer. The American taxpayer said that we are spending too much money, and that they want greater oversight on the amount of money that this Congress spends of their hard-earned tax money.

Mr. Chairman, this new majority ran on a policy of openness and honesty and candor, and I would suggest that this is hardly a process that could be considered as embracing openness or honesty or candor. If we examine the process that's proposed by the majority party, it would allow appropriations bills to have a line in them. Every appropriations bill would have a line in it, it would say ``trust us, just trust us.'' Any Member that then wanted a special project or an earmark would write a request to the Appropriations Chair, the Appropriations Chair would then decide if that project had merit, not the House, the Appropriations Chair, and then we would be informed. No opportunity to identify that particular project, projects would simply be disclosed. We would be given information.

Well, Mr. Chairman, this issue isn't about disclosure. It's not just about knowing what's in the bill. It is about having the opportunity, as our constituents would desire, for us to debate the issue, for us to debate each of those special projects, for us to deliberate on them. It would be an opportunity for us to follow the rules of the House. It would be an opportunity for transparency, and a much greater opportunity for accountability.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is about ideology, yes, about who ought to be better able to spend the hard-earned taxpayers' money, whether it's Washington or whether it's our constituents. And it's about a slush fund that we are beginning to get a sense is recurring in bill after bill, and in these appropriations bills, a slush fund in every bill that would allow the majority party to determine where those special projects would be funded.

So what's the solution? What's the solution? We had a long debate yesterday, a long discussion yesterday. And I think it is important that we put on the table the solution that would be most appropriate, and that is, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, a moratorium. Let's have a moratorium on all earmarks. Let's make it so that we do what the American people, what our constituents would desire, which is to get together and solve this challenge that we have. It's not a Republican challenge or a Democrat challenge, it's an American challenge: How do we most wisely and most responsibly spend the American taxpayer money?

I would support a moratorium. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment as we learn and work to responsibly spend taxpayer money.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I would say to my colleagues, here we go again with Orwellian democracy, which is alive and here on the floor of the House with the majority party saying one thing and doing another. They promised us a more transparent process, they promised us a process that had greater accountability; and in fact, what we are getting is something completely the opposite.

I would note also that we are coming to the floor now with the first appropriations bill which is 1 month later than when we brought our appropriations bills to the floor last year.

I am sorry that the Chair of appropriations has left the floor. He made the comment that this would be a more responsible earmark process. He said he would take all of the requests and would add, quote, ``virtually every earmark,'' unquote, would be included in the bill. Well, that is interesting.

What that process does is make the Chair of the Appropriations Committee the judge and the jury, the sole judge and the sole jury for every single special project. I would prefer there would be no special projects, but it appears that the Appropriations Chair is going to be the one to determine whether or not your project is worthy.

Those that have already been dropped into bills brought before this Congress give us no comfort. There appears to be significant favoritism that is being played, significant politics being played. And the threats that have been given by a Member on the majority side to a Member on the minority side, if he didn't support an earmark, give us no comfort.

We will get 30 days to review. Well, that is a wonderful thing, with no opportunity, as the gentleman from Arizona said, to have any vote on any earmark.

Mr. Speaker, that is not greater transparency or greater accountability.

The chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, Well, if you don't like an earmark, vote against the bill, with no ability to get to a specific egregious program that so angers the American people.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is Orwellian democracy at its finest, doing one thing and saying exactly the opposite. This ought to be an interesting period of time as we move through the appropriations bills. It ought to be a very interesting time as we move through a process that has turned into a sham. It ought to be a very interesting time; and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the American people are, indeed, paying attention.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I want to commend the gentleman from California for offering this amendment. I think that at the beginning of this first appropriations bill of the 110th Congress, which I might add is 1 month after the first appropriation bill that we, when we were in the majority last year, that we moved through the House. So the time is without a doubt getting late, but I commend the majority for finally bringing this to the floor.

But I want to commend the gentleman from California because this is the type of amendment that sets the tone about what kind of responsibility we will bring to this House for all of our appropriations processes over the next number of weeks.

I want to commend the gentleman for this amendment. I appreciate the fact that he has identified an area where, yes, it's only $10 million, but $10 million in my area is a fair amount of money. So I want to commend the gentleman for bringing the amendment to the floor.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina for a response.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman pointing out the increase by 7.5 percent. Again, I would like to just draw the House's attention to the fact that this may just be $9.5 million, but as I mentioned, $9.5 million is a fair amount of money.

I appreciate also the gentleman coming to the floor earlier and talking about broadening this debate. He talked about what he called the war deficit. He brought minimum wage into this debate, brought spending into this debate. That's a wonderful thing. Because, yes, that's what we're talking about. We are talking about spending hard- earned taxpayer money. So no amount of money is too small to discuss and to bring light to.

I would implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to, yes, look at the expansive nature of these appropriations bills, to look at the increase in the amount of money that this majority plans on spending over past Congresses.

I also would ask my colleagues to look at the process. Because the debate has been expanded, I think it's an appropriate time to talk about the issue regarding earmarks, special projects. We have now a policy apparently in this House of Representatives, that allows the majority party or, actually, one Member of the majority party, to determine when he decides which earmark, which special project, warrants support by the entire House or warrants the opportunity to even have a vote on a special project.

But can you have a vote on a specific special project? No, no. What we will have, our special projects that are the pet special projects of one individual, brought into a conference report, and no opportunity, no opportunity for any Member of this body to point out that, in fact, that ought to have a particular vote, that we ought to have individuals stand up.

I support the amendment of the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for his amendment, drawing attention once again to the amount of spending in this and, I am certain, in other appropriations bills as we go forward.

I think it is important for the Chamber and for all of those who might be watching to appreciate that spending is, indeed, the disease that infects Washington. It is the disease that makes it so that Americans all across this Nation no longer trust this Congress to do the right thing when it comes to being good stewards of their hard- earned taxpayer money.

In fact, this Congress so far has increased spending, authorization for spending, by over $50 billion already. And instead of being more responsible with the appropriations bills they are bringing forward, in fact we find tens of billions of dollars in more spending.

Now, the consequence of that is somehow you have to pay for that. What we have seen by our friends in the majority is adopting a budget that will be, if not the largest tax increase in the history of the Nation, the second largest tax increase, depending on how you do the numbers, but hundreds of billions of dollars.

Mr. Chairman, I know we have good friends who talk about the new direction that they brought to Washington, given the last election. Mr. Chairman, I am here to tell you, that new direction is backwards, and it is backwards to a time of tax and spend that, frankly, the American people don't favor.

One of the things the American people do favor, however, is sunshine. And they favor it for all of the activities that we engage in here in Congress, sunshine in the processes that we have, and sunshine in making sure that votes are recorded in committee, sunshine in terms of the debate that goes on. And, yes, Mr. Chairman, sunshine in terms of the money that this Congress spends, which is why it is so distressing that we have a new policy on behalf of the Appropriations Committee and the majority that allows for hidden spending, less transparency, less accountability when it comes to something that the American people care dearly about; and that is earmarks, special projects, or ``pork projects,'' as many people know them by back home.

We have been harping on this because it is such a change, such a remarkable change in policy and in procedure here on the House floor and within the House of Representatives.

And it's not just our opinion. It's not just our opinion. There are newspapers that have provided their opinion all across this Nation, that have agreed. They have said that the process that's been adopted, which would allow for one individual, one individual in this Chamber, to determine which special projects would be supported and to determine which projects would be included in a conference report, not brought to the floor in the usual appropriations process, not so that my colleagues here can stand up and say, I don't think we ought to be spending hard-earned taxpayer money on that project. In fact, I think I feel so strongly about that that we ought to vote on it, and people ought to be held accountable.

It's the kind of vote that when we were in the majority we allowed because it's an appropriate vote to allow, and we even went further in the last Congress and adopted a rule that said if earmarks, if special projects were put in in a conference report, when you only get to vote on the overall bill itself, you can't pick out individual projects. If they were put in that conference report, then a Member of the House on either side of the aisle could raise a point of order and say, we ought not be taking that up because it violates the rules of the House, and had an opportunity to highlight, to bring a specific vote for a specific measure.

Well, Mr. Chairman, that apparently is no longer the case, from what we hear by Members in the majority party now, and it's not only our opinion that it's the bad way to do the House's business, it's the opinion all across this Nation.

The Wisconsin State Journal recently wrote an editorial and said, with this maneuver, it will prevent the public and most lawmakers from questioning earmarks until it's too late. That means you can't do anything about it.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch said, But in a slick maneuver, they will keep them hidden from public scrutiny. In a slick maneuver, they will keep them hidden from public scrutiny.

Mr. Chairman, that's not the kind of leadership that the American people want. That's not the kind of responsible spending of hard-earned taxpayer money that the people want. That's not what they voted for in November. They didn't vote for more hidden rooms. They didn't vote for less scrutiny.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and to adopt any amendment that decreases spending in this appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this issue, and I commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina for presenting this issue.

The hour is getting late, but I think it is extremely helpful and extremely clarifying for those watching to appreciate that there is a distinction between the different folks rising this evening and drawing attention to the amount of spending.

The gentleman who is presenting this bill said in all sincerity that this bill wasn't about earmarks and it wasn't about ideology. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would beg to differ. It is all about ideology, and it certainly has a lot to do with earmarks.

The ideology we talk about being present in this bill and every other appropriations bill that I have seen that has been filed so far is that there is one side that believes that spending ought to increase to a fare-thee-well. And there is the other side which believes there ought to be responsibility to that spending.

We have already seen the majority party, so far this year, increase authorization for spending by over 50 billion new dollars. We have already seen the new majority adopt a budget which has, depending on who you talk to, the largest tax increase, or the second largest tax increase, in the history of our Nation. That tax increase is to pay for the spending.

So, yes, Mr. Chairman, it is all about ideology. It is also about earmarks because what we have been presented is a new policy by the majority party that allows for a slush fund, a slush fund for earmarks in virtually any appropriations bill that comes to the floor.

So I commend my colleague from Georgia who spoke just before me and offered a solution, an opportunity to bring greater sunshine and greater light to those earmarks. I think that was a well-thought-out proposal.

I suspect there are people watching and saying, what is it that we desire? Why is it that we are drawing attention to what we believe to be an egregious rule? Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest what we desire is a decrease in irresponsible spending. It is that irresponsible spending that is causing tax bills for Americans to mount up to unacceptable levels. And, consequently, we believe the slush fund for earmarks ought to be done with, ought to go away. The American people ought to know who is spending their hard-earned tax money, and they ought to be able to hold those folks accountable.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the solution to the dilemma in which we currently find ourselves is to have the chairman of Appropriations or somebody in leadership on the majority side say, we won't do that, we won't bring about any earmarks in a conference committee that aren't agreed to by each and every Member of the House individually. Individually, that's what we proposed. In fact, that is what we enacted in our own bill, in our own rules last session.

Mr. Chairman, there is a solution to this. There is an opportunity for us to move onward and make it so the American people are able to have their say, to have each and every one of their Representatives have their say about the kind of spending that is going on here in Washington.

And it is not just our side. If you take the words of the Members of the new majority from the not-too-distant past, after the recent election, when the the majority leader said, ``We are going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of night, and the public and other Members can see what is being done.'' That is a quote.

Here is another quote. ``Words will not do it. I have a good relationship with Representative Roy Blunt. I have a good relationship with Representative John Boehner. We'll work together. We'll include them in decision-making.

``To the extent that we create an atmosphere of mutual respect, the American people will feel more comfortable with Congress.''

Mr. Chairman, I suspect you know what I know, and that is that the recent data on the respect with which the American people hold this Congress and this majority is at an all-time low. And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that one of the reasons that it is at an all-time low is because of the kind of policies that are being put into place by this majority that make it so that light cannot shine on the amount of spending that is being done in this Congress.

I urge adoption of the amendment. I urge a change to the earmark policy.

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Has the Chairman not said----

I have a point of order.

The gentleman who is currently possessing the time has violated the rules by addressing Members other than the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

A precedent motion was offered after the gentleman moved to strike the last word. The motion was that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

It really is a privilege for me to come to the floor tonight and work with you, Mr. Kirk, for a few moments and to explain to our colleagues here in the House and to the Speaker about the suburban agenda, a very important area. I appreciate your leadership in this area. You have been steadfast in making certain that these issues, and they may not be top-tier issues, they may not be headlines in all of our newspapers, but your district, like my district, I have a suburban district outside of Atlanta, and folks there are concerned about what folks all across this Nation are concerned about.

That really is true. When I talk with groups at home, and once we get past the hot button, the headline issues of Iraq and immigration and the like, people are concerned about education for their kids and they are concerned about health care for themselves and their parents. They are concerned about security and quality of life issues in their community to make certain that there is going to be green space and there are places where can take their kids.

I was sitting in my office and I had to come down and join you. These are not Republican issues or Democrat issues, these are American issues.

They're issues that I think all of the House can rally around. And you mentioned the health care issue, and as a physician, I understand as well as anybody I suspect about the importance of being able to provide health insurance for families.

We live in a world now where jobs aren't constant. It used to be that your dad and my dad and other folks, they'd get a job and they'd be with that same company 25, 30, 35 years, and they'd get a gold watch and they'd move on and they'd take that health care with them. Now, that's not the case. Our children will have 7, 8, 9, 10 different jobs, 10 different employers and oftentimes having themselves as being self- employed.

Exactly. And that hits the nail right on the head. People want to know that their health care is going to be consistent and they have the ability, along with their physicians, to make health care decisions, which is why the Health Insurance Portability Act that Congressman Dent is reintroducing is so important.

It makes it so, as I understand, that if an individual changes jobs, that they're able to provide that COBRA insurance for as long as needed. So it makes it so they can continue that COBRA insurance for a much longer period of time, to tide them over until they're with another employer or they can be able to provide for individual insurance on their own.

It's not the be-all-and-end-all, but it is a particularly important piece of the puzzle that makes it so that people can maintain their own health insurance, and I know that you agree with that.

Exactly, and that gets to the number of uninsured that we have in this Nation. There are 45, 46, 47 million individuals who at some point during this calendar year will be without health insurance. Those aren't the folks that are on Medicaid. Those aren't the folks that are on Medicare. Those are the folks that are between jobs oftentimes, who are unable to continue the COBRA insurance that they ought to be able to, and this is what this bill would do. It would really, really solve one of the major problems that we have with working Americans who do indeed want to provide health insurance for families.

So I commend you for your leadership on this issue and so many others.

The Senior Safety Indignity Act is extremely important. I served in the State legislature, as I know many folks in this chamber did, and every single year we would hear horror stories about problems of health care workers in the nursing home or extended care facility arena.

And in Georgia what we tried to do was a similar kind of thing to make certain that background checks were available, and this would provide that kind of security and that kind of important information for individuals in the senior centers so that we know that the folks who were going to be assisting seniors and caring for seniors have the appropriate skills and the appropriate background in order to do that.

I appreciate that, and the point that you're making is so vital for all of us in this chamber to appreciate, and that is, that we've now been in session 5\1/2\ months, and we've passed and sent to the President about 28 to 30 pieces of legislation. Almost the majority of those are naming a building or naming a post office or renaming a building or renaming a post office.

And these issues here, if you look down the list of those seven issues, from the gang elimination to teacher and student safety, to other education issues with 401 Kids Family Savings Act or the Health Insurance Act that we talked about, the Deleting Online Predators Act, open space, Senior Safety Act, these are the issues that are of vital importance to the American people all across this Nation. These are issues that, frankly, ought to get the vast majority of Members of this chamber on both sides of the aisle's support so that we could move forward with real legislation for real people.

And you're right. The incident at Virginia Tech was so astounding and so horrific for all of us to witness, and our hearts and our prayers still go out to those families.

But I understand, as I know you do, that there were individuals who were reticent to bring that out into the open before it happened, bring that individual who apparently committed that awful, awful tragedy out into the open for fear of potential liability.

That's no way for a Nation to live. That's no way for a responsible people to have to operate, to have to think in the back of their mind, well, can I do what's right or do I have to worry about an attorney, do I have to worry about a lawsuit.

This is the kind of legislation that we, as a Congress, if we adopted these seven items, I suspect that the American people would say this is a Congress that has acted appropriately, and we would all be able to stand proud and with that poster and present it to our constituents and say this is a responsible agenda for the American people.

My concern right now over the next three weeks, as you well know, we're entering appropriations time. It is very likely that none of these things, none of them, will be even brought to the floor during this period of time and that we'll get bound up in the process of spending hard-earned taxpayer money, trying to be responsible in that endeavor. But these issues that are supported by 60, 70, 80 percent of the American people, we ought to be able to take those off the table right away.

We have similar experiences in the city of Atlanta and then in the surrounding area. I don't represent any of the city of Atlanta itself. My district abuts the city of Atlanta, but I have small cities, some as small as 8- to 12,000 residents. I have some as large as 80- to 100,000, and then some unincorporated county areas.

But the resources that they have with which to fight gangs aren't the kind of resources that large metropolitan cities have, large urban areas have, and this bill, introduced by Representative Dave Weichert who himself is a hero in the law enforcement arena, having been the sheriff out in Washington State.

Apprehended the Green River killer, and such a hero he is, and we ought to as a House of Representatives and as a Nation recognize that this Act, this would allow police departments and law enforcement officials all across this Nation to know that there are resources being brought to bear to identify, like MS-13, to identify those gangs that are the greatest threat to our communities, the greatest threat to our constituents all across this Nation, that there is a unified strategy that is going to be brought to bear in order to make it so that we prevail in this war.

This immigration bill that was just in the Senate last week, many of us had great concerns over, but are you telling me that there was a portion of the bill that it would allow gang members who had been convicted of a felony, that if they were found to be illegal, that they couldn't be deported; is that what you are saying?

I couldn't agree more, and there was such great promise for this new Congress, this new majority, not of which we're a part of, but this new majority that was swept in and began in January and all sorts of wonderful promises about great legislation and being responsive to the concerns of Americans all across the Nation. And what we've had is a legislative agenda that hasn't done that.

And so you and I stand here tonight inviting our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to embrace this suburban agenda, embrace an agenda that 70, 80 percent of the American people would support with common- sense pieces of legislation that address security, that address health care, that address education, that address caring for our seniors, that address green space. It just astounds me that we can't get that kind of support on both sides.

No, absolutely.

I appreciate that. It's not that the Internet is bad, it's just that this is a different world, and the Internet is now like Main Street of 20 or 30 years ago, where you would have to be wary of strangers, and our parents told us about strangers on Main Street and how to deal with them. It's much more difficult when those strangers are able to come literally into your own home and entice young people who may not have their guard up as much.

We have story after story, time after time you will hear law enforcement officers talk about the challenges that they have in even getting young people to admit that, in fact, they have been susceptible or been approached by this kind of behavior. But it is rampant out there. It's absolutely rampant. There is not any reason that we ought not to be able to pass some commonsense legislation like the Deleting Online Predators Act like you have introduced in this House of Representatives, which is something that ought to be supported by 70, 80, 90 percent of our colleagues here, something that ought to go, frankly, in front of the appropriations battles we are about to wage over the next 3 to 6 weeks as we work as diligently as we can to responsibly spend hard-earned taxpayer money. But this is something that we ought to be able to coalesce behind.

That's the kind of perpetuation of business as usual here in Washington, that the folks at home just say what on earth are you doing when an individual can be convicted of a felony, and continue to get their pension, they just shake their head. They throw their hands up in the air, and they say, what are you doing? Why can't you do something responsible, which is why this positive agenda, suburban agenda, which is all things again that the vast majority of Members of this House ought to be supporting, which is why we ought to be pushing that forward.

I, for the life of me, I can't answer why we ought not to be able to deal with these things before we launch into the battles over the appropriations bills.

Do you have any sense as to why the majority party won't allow these kinds of bills to come to the floor?

Not only fallen short, but I would suggest to my good friend from Illinois that the majority party has seemed to raise hiding and decreasing transparency and accountability in a very important area to a huge degree, and that is the area of earmarks, the area of special projects, pork projects, special projects for Members.

What we have just learned in the past week or so is that the Appropriations chair has said well, we won't be debating any of these earmarks, these special projects on the floor of the House. We won't be debating them. What we will do is parachute them in, air drop them in a conference committee so that there can be no light, no sunshine on these earmarks.

That's the kind of priority that concerns me about this majority party, that they have a priority for decreasing transparency and decreasing accountability for spending, but they also, by the same token, will not address the concerns of the vast majority of Americans all across our Nation.

In the area of security, in the area of education, in the area of health care, in the area of senior security, in the area of green space in our communities, a wonderful, positive agenda that we have put before this Congress and, in fact, it's getting no visibility here on floor of the House.

Exactly.

Wouldn't that be wonderful. What a grand legacy. The bill you are referring to is H.R. 87, primary sponsorship by Judy Biggert. It's something that's near and dear to our hearts in Georgia. As you may recall, Senator Paul Coverdale, the late Paul Coverdale, served in the United States Senate. One of his goals was to make certain that there was an ability by all families to be able to afford a college education for their children. He fought as hard as he could during his tenure in the United States Senate to make certain that happened.

This is an extension of that. This is a wonderful, would provide a wonderful opportunity for families to put aside a little money in a tax-free mechanism to be able to cover college education for their children.

We have the HOPE Scholarship savings plan in Georgia, which is remarkably successful. But there is no reason we ought not extend it because what we provide in Georgia is you can't use that money out of state.

Absolutely. What a great template to use. What a wonderful model with the 401(k) program, which is familiar to millions, tens of millions, if not over 100 million Americans, who have some type of 401(k) program. They understand how simple it is, how easy it is, how almost painless it is to be able to plan for the future to put that money aside, and to have a vehicle that models itself off of that, after that, as the 401Kids program would do, to allow moms and dads all across this Nation to be able to put a little money aside on a regular basis. When Junior grows up, they will recognize at the age of 15 or 16 that he or she indeed will be able to have the ability to go to the college of his or her choice and realize their his or her potential and their dreams.

What a wonderful vision and what a wonderful dream. We've all heard the stories of the entrepreneur individual with a significant amount of resources who went into a community and said to a high school or a middle school class that normally wouldn't necessarily have the resources to go to college, any of you that complete your high school education in a way that would allow you to enter a college, I'll fund that college education. This would transfer that, and those kids then do extremely well, so much better than their peers in other classes who haven't been given that assurance.

This is the kind of program that would give that assurance to every young child all across this Nation, to allow their parents to be able to put aside a little bit of money, a little resources over the lifetime of their child so that they can then afford the college education and open the dreams for each and every child.

I know that our time is short, but I just want to commend you once again for your you leadership in this area. These are issues that concern all Americans, issues of education, issues of safety,

issues of security, issues of health care, and they are issues that the vast majority of us ought to support.

So I challenge our friends on both sides of the aisle to step forward and support a positive agenda for the American people. It's outlined right here.

I want to commend you for your leadership, and I appreciate the opportunity to join you tonight.